News Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[denjay]

Regardless of their views, I think Obama is going to win pretty much hands down. He has a presence about him that the the public just loves. A Political Science TA I met called what Obama had "it". Obama has public speaking skills that Romney just does not have and in fact very few people have. People want a celebrity president and Obama is just that.

 

[ThomasT]

Regardless of their views, I think Obama is going to win pretty much hands down. He has a presence about him that the the public just loves. A Political Science TA I met called what Obama had "it". Obama has public speaking skills that Romney just does not have and in fact very few people have. People want a celebrity president and Obama is just that.

I agree with this. I suppose that the candidates aren't going to make any substantial changes in their expressions of their views. I expect that Obama will come off better to most people in any debates. He's just so much more a cool guy than Romney that it's not even a contest wrt their public personas, imo.

However, given Obama's performance as president and what might be reasonably expected given a Romney presidency, I don't think they're substantively too far apart, given existing constraints, wrt what either will actually do wrt major issues.

 

[Naty1]

A Political Science TA I met called what Obama had "it".

I'd not take any course with him.

Romny wins big time.

But I do have a suggested campaign slogan for Obama [instead of the famously socialist "Forward"]:

Get out of that unemployment line: Vote Obama!

 

[denjay]

From an objective standpoint, I cannot see any reasonable way Romney will get the presidency. Obama has multiple things going for him:

1. He's a returning president.
2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)
3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.
4. Romney does have a bad history of having the same opinion on a topic from years before.

 

[mege]

From an objective standpoint, I cannot see any reasonable way Romney will get the presidency. Obama has multiple things going for him:

1. He's a returning president.
2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)
3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.
4. Romney does have a bad history of having the same opinion on a topic from years before.

These issues could be applied to any year and are very generic.

Incumbents do well if things have improved (regardless of their hand in the matter). Perception still is that the country is declining or staying the same. This is probably the biggest part of the WI recall failure: people are going to see the positive stories coming out of WI which will make the national recovery come under further scrutiny.

The exception to the genericy of these comments is #2 - the President is very charismatic. He has a knack for having nearly anyone to relate to him just enough from one little shred from nearly any facet: he was brought up muslim (but is a Christian now), is (half) black, comes from a broken family (but knew his parents well?), has lived abroad (but calls Chicago home), his family struggled financially in his youth (but now he feels he should be taxed more), etc... so he covers all sides of his story and allows many to identify with him easilly. There are lots of things where he covers 'both sides' of an issue and relate to those listening.

On #3 specifically: when is this NOT the case?

#4 - I don't understand? Romney flipflops? Every politician has mutable opinions - President Obama campaigned in the 2008 Primaries AGAINST mandated insurance (both President Obama and then-Sen Clinton have been quoted: "solving the health care issue by mandating insurance is like solving homelessness by mandating home ownership" - this was to separate themselves from Howard Dean and some other lesser contenders), he was clearly against Gay marriage until recently, and the President has dozens of other unfulfilled promises. Personally - I'd much rather have someone that generally guides their actions on principles than some wavering opinion. We should elect someone of strong will to make decisions, not just look at the poll numbers and do whatever is most politically viable (which is what we've seen for 3 years). Not saying that Romney is the strongest willed character of the bunch, but he has a plan and some guiding ideals more than 'get re-elected'.

 

[Number Nine]

I don't understand? Romney flipflops? Every politician has mutable opinions

The problem is with the public perception of Romney's flip-flopping. Here we have a candidate who has emerged the victor in the primary of a political party that has recently been characterized by an absolutely absurd level of partisanship and fear-mongering rhetoric directed against its political opponents. Romney has, in the very recent past, attached himself to positions that the party (and Romney) are now characterizing as being literally fascist or Satanic. The Affordable Care Act has been characterized in conservative circles (again, literally) as being analogous to Nazism, and yet Romney designed and backed an almost identical policy just a few years ago. It's just not credible that Romney had "just failed to realize" that the policies he supported were identical to the policies implemented by Nazi Germany, and that he is now changing his position after deep thought or consideration of the issues. The only sensible explanation, so sayeth many in the general public, is that he's lying.

 

[russ_watters]

2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)

While Obama is certainly skilled at delivering speeches, it is easier to be elected on public speaking ability if you don't have to talk about anything real. People will have real questions about things that he promised in his first campaign or did during the election and will want to hear answers. If he doesn't give good answers, it won't be such a positive thing.

People are biased to believe things they want to hear and biased against things they don't want to hear. So when I hear him talk, I hear a lot of crap. When some of his major talking points failed or didn't become what he said they would, I wasn't surprised, I just wondered how people could be so blind as to not know they were being swindled.

 

[ThinkToday]

From an objective standpoint, I cannot see any reasonable way Romney will get the presidency. Obama has multiple things going for him:

1. He's a returning president.
2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)
3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.
4. Romney does have a bad history of having the same opinion on a topic from years before.

#1 So was his mirror Jimmy Carter. It didn't help him. Except Clinton, you have to go back to Truman to find a Democrat re-elected President.

#2 With a teleprompter he is fine, but he suffers the same problems everyone else does when he speaks off the cuff. He can still deliver a sincere sounding message, but just like the 57 States he visited, he can have foot in mouth issues.

#3 It would be hard to top the bad blood spilled between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008. Romney v. Gingrich was close in "ugly", but Gingrich never had the level of support Clinton did in her party. The implication that Bill Clinton was somehow racist will never be forgiven, IMO. They were talking about that yesterday when Clinton was commenting about extending the Bush tax cuts for ALL on the short term.

#4 I seem to recall Romney's critics where beating the drum that was opposite, i.e. flip flop. I could care less what someone's opinion was 10 or 20 years ago. If they have evolved in their thought, that's a good sign for a mature leader. Evolved isn't telling one group in one State "A" and another State a day later "B", which both have a history of doing, IMO.

In the end, I think Romney will win because of what Obama promised in 2008 and didn’t do. Namely, to be a different kind of politician that would bring all sides together as one America, and all the negatives that came from that failure. I have family that voted for him because he is black and it would have been great to see someone with his background, race, and family history renew the dream of Dr. King. Alas, we got a politician whose idea of working together was “agree or I’ll steamroll over you”. He will fail reelection because he and others forgot we have a “representative” form of government. When “they” go to Washington and vote, they are to speak with our voice. The broad support for the stimulus www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...2009/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37 and ObamaCare www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html was not there and in voting for the bills, the Democrats voted against those they swore to represent. Even today when most favor repeal of ObamaCare, the Democrats fight on against the will of those they are SUPPOSE to REPRESENT http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Obama is the only one living Dr. King's dream, the rest of us and our children will live the nightmare of paying the bills for "his" dream.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.
Outspent.

2. Romney raised more cash in May than Obama by $17 million.
Outraised.
I suppose the White House will point out that money doesn't win elections.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would add a fifth factor, and also argue against the claim that the President is "fantastic at public speaking".

The fifth is the electoral college. If you start with the 2008 vote count and starting from that adjust to a certain 2012 voting distribution, you will find that a 50-50 split goes to the President. It needs to go 50.8-49.2 for Governor Romney to win, which would send Virginia into the Republican column for a 275-263 vote. So President Obama starts with a lead of about 1.6 percentage points. (Note that I assume Arizona will return to its historical average now that there is no AZ native running)

As far as public speaking, one thing that the President does not do well is persuade. Unless he can turn that around, I don't see his speeches helping him that much. His surrogates do a better job in that regard, but they also seem to have a knack for going off-message, which won't help him either.

 

[ThinkToday]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.
Outspent.

Don't think so:

"In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.



Scott Walker won last night because he is a good governor. He didn’t win because of a money advantage, even though Wisconsin rules heavily favor incumbent politicians who are recalled (they can raise unlimited contributions from individuals after recall petitions are filed, whereas opponents cannot take more than $10,000 from individuals). The media’s attempt to pass this election off as a win for big money simply doesn’t hold water."

And that is from a more detailed publication found here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/06/Media-Spin-Recall-As-Money-Suck

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't think so.

The point of my post was the potential for a conflict of spin from the White House. The spin can't be supported by the facts and that is yet another nail in the coffin for this approach.

 

[Astronuc]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.

I don't think this is accurate. There was a lot of money coming into Wisconsin from outside the state. Perhaps the those supporting Walker outspent those who opposed him.

If Walker has cut government expenses and taxes, then perhaps that in itself is sufficiently persuasive to influence independents in his favor. The expectation is that Republicans and conservatives would vote for Walker, and Democrats and non-conservatives would vote against. Those in between could go either way, and would seem to have swung in favor of Walker.

The point of my post was the potential for a conflict of spin from the White House. The spin can't be supported by the facts and that is yet another nail in the coffin for this approach.

I agree.

 

[Astronuc]

As far as public speaking, one thing that the President does not do well is persuade. Unless he can turn that around, I don't see his speeches helping him that much. His surrogates do a better job in that regard, but they also seem to have a knack for going off-message, which won't help him either.

IMO, Obama is a rather poor public speaker, and he is certainly poor at speaking extemporaneously. He's certainly not as smooth as Clinton.

Interestingly, I'm hearing more comparisons of Obama to G Bush rather than to Clinton.

 

[Astronuc]

3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.

I think the distaste for Obama is greater than the distaste for Romney - among those predisposed to vote for the GOP candidate.

I think the 2012 presidential election will come down to the lesser of two distasteful candidates.

 

[Pkruse]

I just read this whole thread and found it very interesting. But I don't see any compelling reason to favor one over the other in the election. When that happens, I normally vote for the new guy.

Perhaps we need to put NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot. Then if NONE wins, we have another elections with an entirely new cast of players.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I just read this whole thread and found it very interesting. But I don't see any compelling reason to favor one over the other in the election. When that happens, I normally vote for the new guy.

Perhaps we need to put NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot. Then if NONE wins, we have another elections with an entirely new cast of players.

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

 

[ThinkToday]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

The problem with "a national proportional representation system" is the little states and their issues die. While the Electoral College isn't great, it's better than the population of a half dozen states deciding the next President. However, I would like to see each State have proportional distribution of Electoral College delegates. IMO, 50.1% of the State’s voters should never yield 100% of the delegates to one person.

I'm not a fan of the 2 party system, but it's what we have. IMO, the parties are both controlled by the extremes, which leaves little room for candidates that are in the middle, like most Americans, IMO. I think most of us are in the middle, each with our own few things leaning “extreme”. Unlike many, I like the Citizens United decision. Look at how it (the extra money) was able to drag the Republican selection out. Maybe some talked too much and too long, but at least they were still pushed to talk about issues. We had a chance to see more of the candidates in states both favorable and unfavorable to them.

Personally, I think the drawn out Primaries are the problem. Someone gets the momentum with a few states early, and it makes all the difference. I’d like to see candidates get 3-6 months to hit each State, and then have ALL the primaries done in the span of a couple weeks tops. In that way, the Party doesn’t stack the deck favoring any States and those States ability to determine the outcome of the process. IMO, almost every State primary after March is pro forma, since there is almost no selection left out of the original pool the first States were able to choose from.

Lastly, while candidates getting out shaking hands, stump speeches, kissing babies, etc. is all fine, I loved the debates, and I’d like to see more of them. I’d like to see the debates each focused on a single topic, e.g. defense, foreign aid, Choice, religion, economy, jobs, taxes, Constitutional history/knowledge, etc. By each debate focusing on a single topic each candidate will be forced to spend more than a 60 sec sound bite making their case for/against a position. IMO, the great things about debates are 1) see them have to think on their feet, 2) can’t tell one State “A” and another “B”, since they’re all listening to the same thing, 3) you can see in which area(s) each shine or fade, and 4) if properly done, we’ll have a better sense of the people running. Perhaps, even a modestly funded person can break into the front.

I'm hoping the Obama v Romney debates will set the stage for something a bit more informative. Kind of like the Gingrich v Cain Debate setting.

 

[aquitaine]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

Here's what I think is a much more serious problem: So you see Lonestar, evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

 

[KiwiKid]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

I don't know if it would be much better. Proportional representation is being used by quite a few countries, but I'm not sure whether it can be said that these governments are necessarily better than others.

Of course, this may have little to do with PR - which may be good in itself - and more with the fact that there are huge differences between countries.

 

[ThomasT]

IMO, Obama is a rather poor public speaker, and he is certainly poor at speaking extemporaneously.

Why do you say that? Any examples I can view?

He's certainly not as smooth as Clinton.

I agree.

I think the 2012 presidential election will come down to the lesser of two distasteful candidates.

You might be right. It seems that there are certain, significant, numbers of hardcore Obama and Romney advocates, and then about 15% of the electorate that's really difficult to predict. If the 'undecides' are more or less equally dispersed in the demographic spectrum, then it's either candidate's race to win or lose. But if not, then, presumably, one candidate might be an 'odds-on' favorite to win ... depending on campaign strategies and implementation of course.

Currently, I'm betting on Obama. But that might change before the election. Personally, I don't care who gets elected, because I don't think it matters wrt any of the important issues that either will deal with as president.

 

[elegysix]

Currently, I'm betting on Obama. But that might change before the election. Personally, I don't care who gets elected, because I don't think it matters wrt any of the important issues that either will deal with as president.

Then why don't you vote for Ron Paul? I'll be penciling his name in even if he drops out. He's the only candidate I've seen that really tackles the big issues - he actually provides a detailed spreadsheet with all the accounting to show that he will cut the deficit. Something none of the other candidates have done.

Even worse, on the white house website you can find info on the tax revenue and budget - projected out another 4 years or so. Obama's projected tax revenue doubles over the next term, while still having a deficit (incredible! I know) and that doesn't sound good for business.

I'd like to say Romney will be good for us, but I've read through his plans and haven't found good news for the budget or wars. He offers a few minor cuts on spending, a few tax breaks, but a huge boost to military spending - and the foreign policy of war if you ask me. There just isn't enough in his plan to reason that he will balance the budget, and a lot that suggests we'll be going to war. He hasn't provided basic accounting to show that his plan will balance the budget, and I can only reason that's because his plan won't balance it. I don't think it would even be close to balancing it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't know if it would be much better. Proportional representation is being used by quite a few countries, but I'm not sure whether it can be said that these governments are necessarily better than others.

Of course, this may have little to do with PR - which may be good in itself - and more with the fact that there are huge differences between countries.

Exactly, I'm not saying the quality of political parties or government in general would change. But the system itself would be fairer IMO because it would allow other parties to actually stand a chance, ensure that no one's vote is wasted, remove the necessity for tactical voting and generally make people feel like they actually have a say which could reduce voter apathy, increase political participation and reduce social tension arising from a feeling of disillusionment with political process.

This is getting a bit OT though. If anyone wants to continue it would probably be best to branch off to a new thread.

 

[ThomasT]

Read this today:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/children-illegals-deported-immigration/2012/06/15/id/442453

Just some politcal positioning by Obama aimed at maximizing his projected proportion of the Hispanic/Latino vote, imo.

 

[russ_watters]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

 

[aquitaine]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it. Sad as that is though...

 

[Vanadium 50]

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it. Sad as that is though...

But one theme of the President's campaign was "I'm better than the guy in the Oval Office". I would have hoped for more from his supporters than "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel".

There's also a difference between the signing statements of both Presidents Bush and Obama (and for that matter James Monroe) - which have no legal effect - and the President saying he's not going to enforce a law he feels is Constitutional (he said so in March 2011) but that he disagrees with. Particularly when that looks like an attempt to win more voters.

Will this win more voters? It's hard to tell. It's certainly true that for every independent voter he loses he needs to pick up one from the base - or vice versa.

 

[russ_watters]

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it.

Besides what V50 said (Obama said he'd be better), it appears to me that Obama has been much worse on that score.

 

[aquitaine]

But one theme of the President's campaign was "I'm better than the guy in the Oval Office". I would have hoped for more from his supporters than "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel".

There's also a difference between the signing statements of both Presidents Bush and Obama (and for that matter James Monroe) - which have no legal effect - and the President saying he's not going to enforce a law he feels is Constitutional (he said so in March 2011) but that he disagrees with. Particularly when that looks like an attempt to win more voters.

Will this win more voters? It's hard to tell. It's certainly true that for every independent voter he loses he needs to pick up one from the base - or vice versa.

Yeah. That election was a choice between someone who said he would do better but didn't and someone who would have been more of the same. Either way we would get largely the same results except on a few wedge issues. I can't help but get the same vibe this time around, regardless of whether or not Robama or Obamney gets elected.

Besides what V50 said (Obama said he'd be better), it appears to me that Obama has been much worse on that score.

But here's the thing, during Bush's first term he had no vetos at all. None. To find a president with a comparable veto record for one complete term I had to look all the way back to John Quincy Adam's presidency (several others that also had 0 vetos died before their first term was up). During this period of something absolutly unprecendented happened and that was the executive branch merged with the legislative branch. I suspect the reason he didn't veto any legislation was because it was all his branch's legislation to begin with. Now, with Obama we largely have a continuation and an expansion of many Bush policies, but without a compliant congress he just runs over them instead. I predict if Romney gets elected we'll see a continuation and expansion Obama's policies, regardless of whether or not congress (or the electorate for that matter) wants to go along for the ride.

 

[Astronuc]

Robama or Obamney

It appears that Romney wants to increase the Defense budget and decrease income taxes. OK - so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?